In August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian dropped a bombshell on his fellow Democratic leaders, accusing them of allowing a culture of sexual harassment at the Oregon Capitol.

The complaint came during the summer’s #MeToo movement and questioned how political and administrative leaders in the Oregon Legislature handled complaints about Republican Sen. Jeff Kruse by his colleagues and his student interns.

The complaint, which has resulted in an investigation, was unexpected and unprecedented. It struck many as political grandstanding – Avakian’s attempt to create a legacy in his final months in office.

It was also needed.

The complaints of Kruse’s inappropriate comments and unwanted touching were disturbing in how common and well-known they were. And he wasn’t the only one. Other names and allegations arose during the Kruse coverage, and Avakian wrote in a recent court filings that as many as 15 other victims may be willing to come forward with their own stories of harassment.

But it was especially disheartening to hear Sen. Sara Gelser (D-Corvallis) last week, as she shared her experiences with a panel tasked with reviewing the Oregon Legislature’s sexual harassment policies. Gelser, whose complaints led to Kruse’s eventual resignation, told the panel that a year later, nothing in Salem has changed.

“If I had to go back in time, I probably wouldn’t [file a formal complaint] again,” Gelser told the panel on Friday, according to a report by OPB’s Lauren Dake. “And that’s a real problem.”

She’s right. When Labor Commissioner-elect Val Hoyle takes over the office in January, she should publicly voice her support of the investigation and continue pushing for answers about how allegations have been handled in this unique workplace where elected “bosses” can only be fired by voters.

Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Tina Kotek have shown they’re committed to making the Legislature a safer workplace. They were quick to establish the Oregon Law Commission’s review of sexual harassment policies. The panel has already produced promising recommendations, such as creating an independent office to lead up investigations and training, strengthening policies to address retaliation and establishing a process for interns to seek help and guidance if they are harassed.

But Courtney and Kotek should stop blocking the bureau’s investigation. The leaders originally promised transparency, yet have refused to hand over records or provide testimony. They argue that they’re trying to protect victims’ privacy. On Friday, they won a temporary stay that delayed a Dec. 5 deadline to hand over records.

But this court battle sends the wrong message to employees.

Labor bureau officials say they also will aim to protect victims who prefer to remain anonymous. They have a protective order in place to bar the release of any records collected through subpoenas.

And while lawyers representing the Legislature have claimed BOLI released victims’ names without permission, Kruse’s former interns say that’s not the case. Adrianna Martin-Wyatt told OPB that she is “appalled that the Legislature is dragging their feet so much and fighting so strongly against changing the culture at the Capitol. After seeing that they were not complying with the BOLI investigation and not being transparent like they promised, I decided to come forward publicly because I believe we have an opportunity to change the culture at the Capitol.”

The culture must be changed. To do that, lawmakers must work toward a safer and more welcoming workplace by carefully reviewing and improving policies. That’s what they do best. They should leave the important examination of how state employees have been treated and how employers responded to the labor department investigators. That’s what they do best.

-- Laura Gunderson for The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board

Oregonian editorials

Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung, Therese Bottomly and John Maher.

Members of the board meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on issues of the day. We publish editorials when we believe our unique perspective can lend clarity and influence an upcoming decision of great public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and therefore different from news articles. However, editorials are reported and written by either Laura Gunderson or Helen Jung.